Children and divorce: A rapid review targeting cognitive dissonance, in the context of narrative therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, for divorcing parents, the social norms of "good" parenting appear to impose obligations to "fight" for shared custody of their children. However, this may intensify conflicts experienced by their children in the form of cognitive dissonance. Authors conducted a rapid review to explore children's experiences of divorce (ages three to 12 years old) in the context of narrative therapy, in order to uncover the mechanism of cognitive dissonance. Four databases of Scopus, PsychINFO, Family and Societies Studies Worldwide, and PubMed were searched for literature in the last 10 years. Results included 11 study articles, one policy brief, and one book chapter, representing the experiences of 1169 children from seven developed countries/regions. Our findings suggest four themes associated with cognitive dissonance, whereby the first three represent the formation of harmful perceptions of cognitive dissonance resulting from divorce. The fourth represents the children's coping strategies to reduce their cognitive dissonance. We advocate that family mediators consider narrative therapy targeting cognitive dissonance as a means of repairing disruptions to family coherence. In this regard, we recommend that future research explore the consequences of children's confrontation of their cognitive dissonance in narratives found to be prevalent in children's experiences of divorce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".